A leading American opponent against the possible war on Iraq, Prof Richard Falk, has given his justifications for backing the United States' campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan last year.

Falk explained that his consideration to support the US campaign in Afghanistan came at a time when his country was experiencing severe harm from the Sept 11 terror attacks in New York city and Washington DC.

"The US had to respond as best as it could to remove the continuing threat. It couldn't just rely on criminal law enforcement to deal with a threat of this magnitude," he said.

Falk, who is a foremost scholar of international law, was speaking at a talk organised by the Malaysian Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur on Friday when he was asked by a member of the audience on his reason(s) for supporting the war in Afghanistan previously.

The scholar was one of the participants in the recently concluded international roundtable on "The Challenge of Globalisation: Towards a Shared Universal Spiritual and Moral Ethic" in Genting Highlands organised by the International Movement for a Just World (Just).

Regime lacked legitimacy

Furthermore, Falk observed that Afghanistan was governed by the Taliban regime which lacked legitimacy.

"It is only recognised by three governments in the world and two of them repudiated their recognition after Sept 11," he said.

The scholar added that Afghanistan did appear to be the "very nerve centre of the al-Qaeda terrorist network".

"So, from those perspectives, and it's still my perspective that in those circumstances, a war against Afghanistan appeared justifiable."

Falk, however is also one of America's most critical voices against the imminent war on Iraq. The scholar argued that the administration of US President George W Bush's insistence to unilaterally wage war against Iraq is violating United Nations Charter which calls for the limitation in the use of force by any of its members against other countries.

The Bush administration with support from Congress had warned that it would launch a unilateral attack on Iraq, which the US claimed is still harbouring weapons of mass destruction.

While Iraq is known to be capable of producing such weapons, UN arms inspectors had earlier failed to unearth solid evidence to prove that Iraq still possesses such weapons.

Recently, Iraq consented to allow the arms inspectors back into the country following the US war threat.

Last option

Meanwhile, Falk maintained that war should only be the last option for self-defense against an actual threat.

While he does not support the Iraqi regime, he claims that the war on Iraq cannot be justified on the ground of self-defence.

According to him, US unilateralism is putting the UN in a dilemma as the world body faces the choices of either becoming irrelevant or giving the US legitimacy to wage war although the purpose of the UN establishment was to prevent war in the first place.

Falk had a distinguished academic and professional career spanning almost half a century. He spent 36 years as a professor of international law and practice at the prestigious Ivy-League Princeton University and is associated with many international bodies and agencies.

Currently, he is a visiting professor in global studies at the University of California and chairman a US-based non-governmental organisation, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation .